throwhauser

Combining a small repertoire of git commands and this type of brute-force backup allows people to use git without having to learning all the details of its inner workings (or at least not having to keep that knowledge in everyday short-term memory.)

If a small repertoire of git commands covers 95% of what a person needs git for, and recovering from backup covers the remaining 5%, why spend time and effort "git-ifying" that last 5%?

They're billionaires because of the work ethic, not necessarily their work ethic. Bezos isn't optimizing his own productivity, he optimizes his employees productivity and spends his time as he pleases. He keeps the gains from the productivity regardless.

EDIT: Actually I don't know if Bezos optimizes his own productivity or not. Nevertheless, his own productivity is a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands who work for his companies.

A watched pot never boils.

> Bitcoin’s value isn’t coupled to energy.

Then what would happen if the energy and materials needed to compute the hashes were literally zero cost?

I did some googling and there seems to be some truth to this, although following the numerical estimate back toward the source finds "near-crashes" expressed less dramatically as "close encounters", defined as within 1km, most of which occur with other Starlink satellites.

Pick one, actually.

How long?

There aren't that many old, large-scale codebases in use that are failures. If most of these are not following what you consider to be best practices, maybe those practices aren't as advantageous as you assume.

That many flights probably does match the fossil fuel consumption of some countries with low levels of electrification. What a tremendous waste of resources.

Why such a narrow range? Why wouldn't it fluctuate between $0.10 and $10,000,000.00?

The stock-market valuations of the late 1990s were excessive, but the objectives of the actual companies were fairly reasonable. Trading... over the internet. Order your pet food... over the internet. Eventually many of these things actually happened, they just weren't done by the "first movers" who were represented in the stock market bubble.

What's happening now, in the cryptocurrency milieu, is more deranged. It's to the point that it's making technology itself seem like a joke.

Anytime I do anything with python on Linux or MacOS I encounter python, python3, pip, pip3, venv, virtualenv, conda, poetry... so much machinery around the code. Throw in your platform-specifc package manager of choice as well (apt, brew, etc)

EDIT: Oh and pipenv!

Bitcoin could go over a million dollars, or below one dollar, multiple times, in any order. It would be a risky short, even if it did ultimately end up valued at 0.

I went up x,xxx% from basically nothing though. Going up the same percentage in the next five years from the current price is another story. I wonder if this might be contributing to the popularity of NFTs as a new, alternative thing for people to risk their money on.

I think there's a bug, if you put in a birth date in the 1930s for the USA, it says you have negative time remaining.

> Not funny when you lose your music and software worth several hundred euros.

Indeed. I never spent much money on Apple media or applications, but in the last few years I've spent nothing.

Then how do we know this phenomenon exists?

> Secondly, for every successful CEO package, there are hundreds of others that you don't hear about because they failed to meet goals laid out in their compensation package

Are there any notable examples of a CEO missing a target and getting paid less than they could have?

I was mentally preparing myself to agree with Sonos on something, but apparently the patent in question is for being able to adjust the volume on a group of speakers instead of having to adjust each speaker individually. It seems ridiculous that this is patentable at all. It seems like the sort of usability feature that would take five minutes to design and perhaps get implemented before lunch. Am I missing something here?

Every year you'll be a year older though, which eventually results in being in a different (higher) risk category.

> My wife is going to rip me open if I do something similar.

Yikes.

I'm also not a lawyer, but yeah, it sure feels like using the word "own" and having real money, real trades, and a trademarked name in the mix could be problematic.

> I would wear a spandex "onesie" with a lightning bolt.. for about 30 seconds.

Which brings us right back to (very) fast fashion.

> When you have virtually unlimited resources you can do almost anything you want.

> Dunno how because it ain't my expertise at all, but there would be a way.

What makes you so sure?

Just because things are funded doesn't mean they'll flourish.

Why?

> We need to super-nova this thing

Is there a precedent for "us" doing this? Surely some pandemics have "super-nova'ed" themselves, but having "us" encourage faster and wider spread as policy seems risky and unusual.

> Seems the evidence bar for bad news is quite low, but the bar for good news is unbelievably high.

It seems safer to believe bad news, and remain wary, than to believe good news and drop your guard.

Bezos has noticed an adjacent phenomenon.

"The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right."

When reasoning becomes too abstract, it's more likely to fail to account for things happening in the real world.

> ...the anti-NFT crowd doesn't seem to get it and that is just as frustrating. People value status signaling tools.

The fact that it's even possible to not "get it" means that NFTs are not an effective status signaling tool. If it has to be explained, the status signal was not received.

Lamborghinis, yachts, and large diamonds inspire a visceral reaction; there's nothing to explain.